Antony Flew, world's most famous ex-atheist, has passed away at age 87.

Not everyone may remember Flew or his significance. I do, because Flew was the "Richard Dawkins" of my childhood. Actually, Flew was never "Richard Dawkins," because he was never as crass and philosophically illiterate as Dawkins; but when I was younger, Flew was the key voice for atheism in the English-speaking world, as Dawkins appears to be now.

When I was in fourth grade I read a book entitled "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?", a debate between Flew and Christian apologist Gary Habermas. The general consensus was that Habermas won the debate; I certainly thought so, after reading the book. It was a key point in my own intellectual development, because it convinced me that one could make solid rational arguments for the veracity of Christian faith.

I was completely taken aback just two years ago when the news broke that Flew had changed his mind. After dialoguing with a Catholic proponent of intelligent design theory for years, Flew finally came to concede that the marvelously complex features of the universe--like the fine tuning of cosmological constants and the information content of DNA--were inexplicable without positing a Mind behind them. Therefore, Flew became a Deist. He never--so far as I know--became a Christian, although he counted Christians among his friends.

So long, Professor Flew. You were a model of the intellectually honest gentleman scholar. You always treated your opponents with respect, and tried to follow truth wherever it lead you, even when that was someplace you didn't want to go.

May you find that the God you knew as your Designer is also your Father. I pray you have discovered it to be so.

“In December 2004, an interview with Flew conducted by Gary Habermas was published in the journal Philosophia Christi (published by the Evangelical Philosophical Society with the assistance of Biola University), with the title, Atheist Becomes Theist - Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew. Flew agreed to this title. According to the introduction, Flew informed Habermas in January 2004 that he had become a deist, and the interview took place shortly thereafter. Then the text was amended by both participants over the following months prior to publication. In the article Flew states that he has left his long-standing espousal of atheism by endorsing a deism of the sort that Thomas Jefferson advocated (”While reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings.”). Flew stated that “the most impressive arguments for Gods existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries” and that “the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it”. He also answered in the affirmative to Habermas’s question, “So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?”. He supported the idea of an Aristotelian God with “the characteristics of power and also intelligence”, stating that the evidence for it was stronger than ever before. He rejects the ideas of an afterlife, of God as the source of good (he explicitly states that God has created “a lot of” evil), and of the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact though he has allowed a short chapter arguing for Christ’s resurrection to be added into his latest book.”

Flew is particularly hostile to Islam, and says it is “best described in a Marxian way as the uniting and justifying ideology of Arab imperialism.” In a December 2004 interview he said: “I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins.”

“When asked in December 2004 by Duncan Crary of Humanist Network News if he still stood by the argument presented in The Presumption of Atheism, Flew replied he did but he also restated his position as deist: “I’m quite happy to believe in an inoffensive inactive god”. When asked by Crary whether or not he has kept up with the most recent science and theology, he responded with “Certainly not”, stating that there is simply too much to keep up with. Flew also denied that there was any truth to the rumours of 2001 and 2003 that he had converted to Christianity.”

While I realize Dawkins was trying to discredit creation (intelligent design), the book actually reinforced my belief in creation. I think the professor was hoping for minds full of mush, but I was older than most of the class and wasn't buying it. I argued with him and my poli-sci prof the most. I got good grades, even though we disagreed, because they were honest about it.

6
posted on 04/14/2010 10:01:59 AM PDT
by IYAS9YAS
(The townhalls were going great until the oPods showed up.)

I read the debate between him and Thomas B. Warren many years ago, and found it most interesting. As debates go, what was unusual about this one was Dr. Flew’s affirmative position that God does not exist - which means he was obligated to not only cast doubt on God’s existence (the agnostic position), but to go much further and prove the negative.

His arguments were well-constructed, but required irrational leaps. For whatever reasons, he was obviously willing to make those necessary leaps throughout most of his life. But I suspect that willingness faltered in his later years, and he submitted to the truth.

(Seems to me God has His ways of steering us in the right direction, while still leaving us free to rebel. That story is told again and again throughout the Bible.)

8
posted on 04/14/2010 10:18:47 AM PDT
by LearsFool
("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")

Flew Stated:"We reject all transcendent supernatural systems, not because we've examined or could have examined each in turn, but because it does not seem to us that there is any good evidence in reason to postulate anything behind or beyond this natural universe,"

The trouble is, there is no rational basis for this presupposition. All epistemological systems must start with certain primary assumptions ("axioms") which can neither be proven or disproved by reason. It is these presuppositional foundations which dictate how one percieves reality (ie. metaphysics). The test is how well does any given epistemology explain human experience. I would argue that an empirical epistemology makes no sense of human experience. Only when we start out presupposing the truth of scripture does our reality make sense.

Jewish “scripture” is part of the orthodox cannon. Buddhist and Hindu “scripture”, to the extent there is such a thing, completely contradicts human experience and makes no sense of reality, less so than the empiricists.

Such parts of scripture are generally taken to be myth. For example it is scientifically inconceivable that the human race, all 6+ billion of its individuals, was borne out of incest between the progeny of a primary mating pair, and that one member of this pair lived 900+ years. DNA analyses, and modern fossil records overwhelmingly support the evidence for a world older than 5000-odd years.

"Such parts of scripture are generally taken to be myth. For example it is scientifically inconceivable ..."

Generally taken by who? I can conceive of it quite easily. And please explain rationally why scientific conceivability is an essential foundation for metaphysical reality rather than just being one aspect of a larger construct?

Define “evidnece.” And if you define it as empirical knowledge then prove rationally why “evidence” should be so defined so narrowly. Your empiricism can’t explain or provide a shred of proof (or “evidence” as you use the term) as to how the universe came into being. My theology can. And it’s the only thing that can. That there is more proof than you can offer against those “myths”.

I liken it to what the atheist George Carlin talked about what he believed in, he believed in “The Big Electron”:

“I think were part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesnt punish, it doesnt reward, it doesnt judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while.”

The fact my theology explains something fits your definition of evidence. (a very bad definition by the way). Your empiricism explains nothing of the three items I first posited. I would note also your definition of “evidence” does not preclude the evidence cited as being incorrect. I could cite something as indicating that theorem “A” is more more likely than not, but it could still turn out to be incorrect. Finally, many beliefs are correct and there is nothing wrong with a belief as long as it best explains human experience.

I also have no idea if this man really connected with any Christian denomination

Many born-again Christians don't identify with a denomination. For instance, I was baptized in a Baptist Church, and there I fellwowship and worship with my brothers and sisters in Christ, but I do not think of myself as a "Baptist". I am a Christian.

31
posted on 04/15/2010 8:24:38 AM PDT
by T Minus Four
(Abortion: one dead, one wounded.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.